Continuing the stupid analogy, the BSDL lets me use ANY copier regardless of brand name.
And yes, I can see the merit in the GPL. I firmly believe that every free license, even most proprietary ones, have their place. What I object to is the notion that the L/GPL covers all circumstances and all developers, which is a dominant view here on slashtot.
"Copyleft stops me from running off as many as I like?"
That's right. Sticking with the copier analogy, the GPL only let's me make copies on the GNU copier. I am not allowed to make copies on non-GNU compatible copiers. And I can't copy just the binary parts that I want, I have to copy the source parts as well. And I certainly can't collate copies done on different brand copiers into one book.
Most clauses in the GPL points to instances where sharing code with your friend would be wrong.
Hardly! BSD, MIT and other unrestricted licenses are not copyleft. Kirk McKusick likes to refer to the BSD schema as copycenter. "Take it down to the copy center and run off as many as you want."
Need you ask? It is not the best definition for what RMS means by "free", but then again, neither is "free". It is a word that RMS vociferously denies he has anything to do with. Think about it and you'll figure it out.
By the way, has anyone other than me observed the inherent contradiction between the following two RMS quotes: "An unambiguously correct term would be better" and "To stop using the word ``free'' now would be a mistake"
With what? A gun? A knife? Don't be ridiculous. Harmony was started because Qt wasn't free. But when Qt became free, there was no longer any need for Harmony. No one was interested any more.
Why did you not write a separate mini-language for each of the GUI widgets? Don't answer, I'll guess instead. It's because those widgets have a lot of properties in common so using a single interface to them made sense. Now this isn't an accurate definition of OO, but it's the basic kernel of the OO idea.
I will agree with you that enforced OO is a pain in the ass, particularly when you aren't working with objects (I really hate those books that tell you to "find" your objects in the problem before you start coding). However, your post was dissing all of OO, and C++ in particular, for no apparent reason other than its age or the fact that you didn't write it.
The advantages of OO programming do not require a OO language. In fact, most modern programmers probably use them on a day to day basis, just as they similarly use structured and functional concepts.
Abstraction => integer, widget, file Encapsulation => source file, module Derivation => a button is a widget Polymorphism => I sort numbers and words the same way.
Object oriented programming *works*. Even the Gnomies who rag on KDE because C++ use OO-like constructs in their "pure" C code and brag about their Python wrapper.
But you yourself use OO. Just look at your post. You write "mini-languages... to express a class of GUI widgets".
I have contacted GNU, and so have hundreds of other people. The one word that closest represents what they mean keeps getting rejected. The problem is, they have redefined/appropriated the word "free" for their concept of software, and now they refuse to change it. They continue in the belief that Free Software == Free Speech. This is ludicrous on the face of it. If they truly believe this, why aren't they passing around Constitutional ammendments for ratification? They also continue in their belief that proprietary software "subjugates" and "dominates" the user.
That not everyone falls for this GNUspeak clearly demonstrates that human language does not limit human thought. That would be like saying sleight-of-hand limits visual acuity.
Troll Tech does not control what platforms Qt may run on. The QPL is Open Source and Free Software, period. If you want a Win32 version of Qt there is nothing stopping you from porting it over. Nothing. So if this is your only complaint, get off your butt and start porting.
This is the Free Software Community. We are soveriegn. We are not sheep or serfs that blindly follow the whims of the masters. Here, we do things for ourselves. We are the ones who make things happen. Nobody's going to hold your hand or wipe your nose anymore. If you see that the world needs changing, go out and change it. Otherwise go back to Master Bill and his software/welfare world.
And what, pray tell, is not Open Source about KDE? Every one of its files are either GPL, LGPL, Artistic, or BSD. Every one if its files, singly or collectively, may be freely distributed, modified or both.
But are any of those JVM's compatible with the GPL?
Of course, I have since learned that JCye is not GPLd, so it doesn't make much different. But considering the KDE boycott and looming lawsuit, I suspect that QPL/GPL compatibility is not the real reason GNUheads hate German desktops.
Then Linux would also have to sue Redhat, Storm, SuSE, Slack, Mandrake, Corel, Caldera, etc., etc. They all include closed source applications.
Linus owns the Linux kernel (and a few fiddlibits). He does not own any other parts of a distribution. He has no say so at all about what programs may or may not use kernel services. In fact, he has a special exception to the kernel license that says essentially the same thing.
That's good to here then. However, I'm wondering if you'll need a special exception to use the new code. Of course, if it can be made to work with Kaffe then everything's hunkydory.
I guess nobody at/. recognizes sarcasm when they step in it. All of your arguments in favor of the JDK apply equally well to Qt. Yet Debian still won't include KDE because they consider it to be illegal.
"If that was the case, then GPL'd software would only be legal on a GPL'd operating system."
But the JDK is not included as or with a major component of the operating system.
"Separate components don't have to be GPL'd. I.e., the source can link with another library that isn't GPL'd. Like, oh, Solaris libc."
Then why can't it be linked to Qt?
"But if I link the same software with a proprietary lib, that same GPL'd software is still fine, and no law has been broken."
Then what was that Corel/libapt fiasco all about? Why are there threats to sue KDE for reusing GPL code?
The problem is that people feel they can arbitrarily decide which projects violate the law and which don't. If KDE is illegal, then so is the java Cye port.
Careful now. If this port only works with the JDK then it may be illegal to redistribute it! The JDK is not free software so it is not compatible with the GPL. Distributing a GPLd application that depends on a GPL-incompatible software is illegal. If your friend asks you for a copy, it would be wrong to give it to him according to the GPL. Just say no. This port is as illegal as KDE.
Go found out a little bit more about security before you cast dispersions upon OpenBSD for being too paranoid in encrypting swap. I'll give you a hint: partitions are persistant.
The "Right Thing", trademarked by MIT, has already been tested against the "Good Enough" mindset of UC Berkeley. Unix is here to stay. Now what was the name of that MIT operating system again? I forget.
Linus followed the the UCB mindset and had a Good Enough kernel in no time. GNU followed the MIT mindset (of course) and they still don't have a halfway stable Right Thing kernel.
Then anyone who can get root access, even if only temporarily, can gain access to the swap file. And if you think gaining root access is impossible, it's time to wake up.
Or maybe more than one person uses this computer. What is your lab mate with a boot floppy doing while you're at lunch?
Slashdot Mirror
Continuing the stupid analogy, the BSDL lets me use ANY copier regardless of brand name.
And yes, I can see the merit in the GPL. I firmly believe that every free license, even most proprietary ones, have their place. What I object to is the notion that the L/GPL covers all circumstances and all developers, which is a dominant view here on slashtot.
"Copyleft stops me from running off as many as I like?"
That's right. Sticking with the copier analogy, the GPL only let's me make copies on the GNU copier. I am not allowed to make copies on non-GNU compatible copiers. And I can't copy just the binary parts that I want, I have to copy the source parts as well. And I certainly can't collate copies done on different brand copiers into one book.
Most clauses in the GPL points to instances where sharing code with your friend would be wrong.
Hardly! BSD, MIT and other unrestricted licenses are not copyleft. Kirk McKusick likes to refer to the BSD schema as copycenter. "Take it down to the copy center and run off as many as you want."
Need you ask? It is not the best definition for what RMS means by "free", but then again, neither is "free". It is a word that RMS vociferously denies he has anything to do with. Think about it and you'll figure it out.
By the way, has anyone other than me observed the inherent contradiction between the following two RMS quotes: "An unambiguously correct term would be better" and "To stop using the word ``free'' now would be a mistake"
"QT used the QPL to kill it. period."
With what? A gun? A knife? Don't be ridiculous. Harmony was started because Qt wasn't free. But when Qt became free, there was no longer any need for Harmony. No one was interested any more.
Why did you not write a separate mini-language for each of the GUI widgets? Don't answer, I'll guess instead. It's because those widgets have a lot of properties in common so using a single interface to them made sense. Now this isn't an accurate definition of OO, but it's the basic kernel of the OO idea.
I will agree with you that enforced OO is a pain in the ass, particularly when you aren't working with objects (I really hate those books that tell you to "find" your objects in the problem before you start coding). However, your post was dissing all of OO, and C++ in particular, for no apparent reason other than its age or the fact that you didn't write it.
The advantages of OO programming do not require a OO language. In fact, most modern programmers probably use them on a day to day basis, just as they similarly use structured and functional concepts.
Abstraction => integer, widget, file
Encapsulation => source file, module
Derivation => a button is a widget
Polymorphism => I sort numbers and words the same way.
Object oriented programming *works*. Even the Gnomies who rag on KDE because C++ use OO-like constructs in their "pure" C code and brag about their Python wrapper.
... to express a class of GUI widgets".
But you yourself use OO. Just look at your post. You write "mini-languages
"...if you disagree contact GNU"
I have contacted GNU, and so have hundreds of other people. The one word that closest represents what they mean keeps getting rejected. The problem is, they have redefined/appropriated the word "free" for their concept of software, and now they refuse to change it. They continue in the belief that Free Software == Free Speech. This is ludicrous on the face of it. If they truly believe this, why aren't they passing around Constitutional ammendments for ratification? They also continue in their belief that proprietary software "subjugates" and "dominates" the user.
That not everyone falls for this GNUspeak clearly demonstrates that human language does not limit human thought. That would be like saying sleight-of-hand limits visual acuity.
Which is why I said "LiteDE".
Troll Tech does not control what platforms Qt may run on. The QPL is Open Source and Free Software, period. If you want a Win32 version of Qt there is nothing stopping you from porting it over. Nothing. So if this is your only complaint, get off your butt and start porting.
This is the Free Software Community. We are soveriegn. We are not sheep or serfs that blindly follow the whims of the masters. Here, we do things for ourselves. We are the ones who make things happen. Nobody's going to hold your hand or wipe your nose anymore. If you see that the world needs changing, go out and change it. Otherwise go back to Master Bill and his software/welfare world.
"High-quality open-source Desktop Environments available for your favorite unix-style OS: KDE, Gnome"
And coming up: Enlightenment as the "LiteDE".
And what, pray tell, is not Open Source about KDE? Every one of its files are either GPL, LGPL, Artistic, or BSD. Every one if its files, singly or collectively, may be freely distributed, modified or both.
umm..dude.. Qt is FREE SOFTWARE. Who cares if there is no free alternative when it is ALREADY FREE!
But are any of those JVM's compatible with the GPL?
Of course, I have since learned that JCye is not GPLd, so it doesn't make much different. But considering the KDE boycott and looming lawsuit, I suspect that QPL/GPL compatibility is not the real reason GNUheads hate German desktops.
Then Linux would also have to sue Redhat, Storm, SuSE, Slack, Mandrake, Corel, Caldera, etc., etc. They all include closed source applications.
Linus owns the Linux kernel (and a few fiddlibits). He does not own any other parts of a distribution. He has no say so at all about what programs may or may not use kernel services. In fact, he has a special exception to the kernel license that says essentially the same thing.
That's good to here then. However, I'm wondering if you'll need a special exception to use the new code. Of course, if it can be made to work with Kaffe then everything's hunkydory.
I guess nobody at /. recognizes sarcasm when they step in it. All of your arguments in favor of the JDK apply equally well to Qt. Yet Debian still won't include KDE because they consider it to be illegal.
"If that was the case, then GPL'd software would only be legal on a GPL'd operating system."
But the JDK is not included as or with a major component of the operating system.
"Separate components don't have to be GPL'd. I.e., the source can link with another library that isn't GPL'd. Like, oh, Solaris libc."
Then why can't it be linked to Qt?
"But if I link the same software with a proprietary lib, that same GPL'd software is still fine, and no law has been broken."
Then what was that Corel/libapt fiasco all about? Why are there threats to sue KDE for reusing GPL code?
The problem is that people feel they can arbitrarily decide which projects violate the law and which don't. If KDE is illegal, then so is the java Cye port.
Careful now. If this port only works with the JDK then it may be illegal to redistribute it! The JDK is not free software so it is not compatible with the GPL. Distributing a GPLd application that depends on a GPL-incompatible software is illegal. If your friend asks you for a copy, it would be wrong to give it to him according to the GPL. Just say no. This port is as illegal as KDE.
Oh what I wouldn't give for some deodorant to fix my code with...
"The enemies of the White race would like to pretend that George Lincoln Rockwell never existed."
Herr Rockwell is irrelevant. Period.
All processes are equal, but some are more equal than others...
Go found out a little bit more about security before you cast dispersions upon OpenBSD for being too paranoid in encrypting swap. I'll give you a hint: partitions are persistant.
"But if root gets broken you're in trouble anyway."
But root can get broken temporarily WITHOUT knowing the root password. Retrieving this off of the swap partition gives the cracker access anytime.
The "Right Thing", trademarked by MIT, has already been tested against the "Good Enough" mindset of UC Berkeley. Unix is here to stay. Now what was the name of that MIT operating system again? I forget.
Linus followed the the UCB mindset and had a Good Enough kernel in no time. GNU followed the MIT mindset (of course) and they still don't have a halfway stable Right Thing kernel.
Then anyone who can get root access, even if only temporarily, can gain access to the swap file. And if you think gaining root access is impossible, it's time to wake up.
Or maybe more than one person uses this computer. What is your lab mate with a boot floppy doing while you're at lunch?